On Fri, 9 Nov 2018 at 17:44, Régis Haubourg <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi all, > I'm following this from a distant eye, not being sure to understand clearly > what is propose and what is at stake. > > Could someone do a brief synthesis for a broader audience? > > Concerning the iOS, a word a the french context. Apple hardware costs are so > expensive that I almost never see any professional GIS application asked on > those platforms. It might be different in the US for sure. > We have more questions about linking QGIS proprietary software in closed > source solutions. And at the cultural moment we see, I see the GPL licence > more as a protection and a way to trigger discussions and cultural changes > than a real break. > We already succeded to change some customers mind to open source their > product. I'm pretty sure that it wouldn't have been possible with a > permissive licence.
Hi Régis! Your concerns are very valid, but could we defer this to a different discussion? I really want to avoid this becoming an us-vs-apple/debate about the merit of specific licenses, and instead allow it to focus solely on the question: "should the qgis org, with all the checks and balances it has in place, have the power to relicense the QGIS codebase (or not)"?. Nyall > > Debate welcome :) > Régis > > Le ven. 9 nov. 2018 à 06:09, Tim Sutton <[email protected]> a écrit : >> >> Hi Nyall >> >> Thanks so much for articulating what I couldn’t in your email below. This is >> 100% what I am after too: A sensible, open discussion with an eye to >> maintaining the long term survival and success of the QGIS project in a >> changing world. I agree with everything you said down to the donation of any >> previous work I have made in the code base to the QGIS.org project. >> >> Regards >> >> Tim >> >> On 09 Nov 2018, at 04:56, Nyall Dawson <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Fri, 2 Nov 2018 at 00:39, Greg Troxel <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> Andreas Neumann <[email protected]> writes: >> >> Before we go to far with the discussion here, I would first ask all of >> the core devs if they really would like to do that. >> >> Without an agreement in place, the code is owned by each contributor >> separately. I know of quite a few core devs who are not keen on ceding >> their copyright to QGIS.ORG, if the goal is to undermine the GPL >> license. >> >> I am also not sure if QGIS.ORG is ready to prepare such an ownership >> agreement. >> >> Personally, I fail to understand what the benefits are, if we go this >> route. On the contrary - I think we are risking to loose many core >> contributors if we do that. >> >> >> I'm a lurker who has not contributed to qgis, but someday might. Within >> pkgsrc.org, a multi-os multi-arch portable packaging system, I'm one of >> the people that most frequently gets asked license questions. I >> maintain the geos/postgis entries in pkgsrc. >> >> I have contributed to a number of open source projects -- but I tend to >> find something else to do when I'm asked to sign any kind of CLA or >> copyright assignment. >> >> I think there are multiple things going on: >> >> How do people feel about accomodating Apple's ban on GPL software for >> the iOS app store? People have talked about qgis having an exception, >> but nobody has brought up talking to Apple to get them to change their >> terms. I suspect those who really believe in the GPL's purpose don't >> want to make an exception, and there will be enough such people that >> rewriting all their code is not sensible. >> >> Evolution of the license as the licensing landscape change. If we are >> talking about changing GPL2 or later to GPL3 or later, that seems >> straightforward, and I think all it takes is for core to accept some >> nontrivial code that is GPL3 or later. There is the serious question >> about not letting people copy/modify/redistribute under GPL2, but >> that's a group social question, not something that needs every >> contributor to sign off on. >> >> Change to permissive. Perhaps because of wanting to accomodate Apple, >> or for other reasons, some may want a permissive license. This is a >> huge cultural change, and I would expect a significant number of >> people would not be ok with this. >> >> Copyright assignment. This opens up the fear of a change in license >> later (to permissive or to accomodate Apple's GPL ban), which leads to >> wanting to have terms in the assignment that constrain the future >> choice. And it means asking people to sign copyright assignments >> before their code can be merged. In my view, this alienates potential >> contributors. So if qgis stays on the GPL "N or later" track, I don't >> see why this helps, and it will definitely hurt. >> >> >> Thanks for the feedback here -- it's much appreciated. >> >> I feel there's been substantial misunderstanding of the original >> intent of my email. It wasn't designed to address any *specific* >> licensing issues such as the issue with Apple's app store. (And, on a >> practical level, this is a VERY REAL issue, limiting some value of >> QGIS). That's all secondary to the discussion I was hoping to raise >> and should be deferred to a future discussion if/when needed/possible. >> >> (Gosh, I can't think of how to word this well... I'll just plough >> ahead and hope my intention gets through) >> >> Up front, know that I'm a staunch open source supporter, both from a >> practical and idealistic view. I'm not interested in closed source >> software and likely never will be. >> >> I strongly believe that the QGIS project has a fantastic governance >> structure, and one which is a role model for other >> projects/communities. This is all thanks to the hard work and tireless >> efforts of the PSC and other members of the community. It's something >> we should be intensely proud of. I know I am! In fact, I've seen time >> and time again how good project governance and community in open >> source projects is often worth FAR more than the code itself. >> >> I personally feel that the project governance structure is so strong >> that I'm willing to trust it with complete ownership of YEARS of my >> development work*. I've complete confidence in the project governance >> that they have (and will remain to have) the best interests of the >> QGIS project at heart. And in order for them to continue doing what's >> necessary to ensure survival (and dominance! ;) ) of the software, I >> think it's important that the organisation has some avenue in future >> to be able to relicense the codebase IF there's a compelling reason >> why they think it's required. >> >> Putting it another way: if, for whatever reason, the current license >> becomes a roadblock in future which threatens the future of the >> software, what do we do? I'd hate to see something like this occur and >> result in the project, and all the years of effort which has been put >> into it, being abandoned because we have no course of action to >> address this. >> >> I 100% realise this is a tricky conversation... but that shouldn't >> prevent us from discussing it openly and with a spirit of >> collaboration. I don't think avoiding tricky discussions just because >> they are tricky is ever a good approach. >> >> And hey, my trust in the project governance goes both ways. If they >> discuss this topic and decide it's not something they want to pursue, >> then I'm fine with that too. Like I said -- I trust them to run the >> project and continue to do outstanding efforts on the jobs we've >> elected them to do. >> >> Nyall >> >> * Heck, take this email as a legally binding agreement if you want -- >> I'm granting the QGIS organisation legal entity any rights they want >> to code I've written for QGIS over the years to do with whatever they >> want. That's how strongly I trust them. >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> QGIS-Developer mailing list >> [email protected] >> List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer >> >> _______________________________________________ >> QGIS-Developer mailing list >> [email protected] >> List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer >> >> >> — >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Tim Sutton >> >> Co-founder: Kartoza >> Ex Project chair: QGIS.org >> >> Visit http://kartoza.com to find out about open source: >> >> Desktop GIS programming services >> Geospatial web development >> GIS Training >> Consulting Services >> >> Skype: timlinux >> IRC: timlinux on #qgis at freenode.net >> >> _______________________________________________ >> QGIS-Developer mailing list >> [email protected] >> List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer _______________________________________________ QGIS-Developer mailing list [email protected] List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
